The NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Program (Bumped)
December 5th, 2007 at 09:23pm Mark Noonan
Norman Podhoretz takes note of some questions about it:
…I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”
Me, too; I haven’t read the actual NIE, but it is reported that while the NIE is highly confident that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Iran continues to enrich a sort of uranium which is really only useful in a nuclear weapons program. In technical terms, to say something like that is known as bullsh**. Its like saying that the illegals have stopped trying to cross the border, but are still digging that tunnel under the fence…
Someone at State and/or CIA is merely trying to undercut the President’s stated policy of not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Yet another lesson in the absolute necessity of any future GOP Administration to fire each and every person hired or promoted by a previous Democratic Administration. Aside from that, I don’t think this NIE will amount to a hill of beans as far as President Bush is concerned - it won’t be an NIE which decides what to do about Iran, but President Bush after carefully weighing all the available data.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, President Bush, War on Terror
241 Comments
1. The NIE on Iran’s Nucle&hellip | December 4th, 2007 at 2:02 am
[…] post by unknown This was written by . Posted on Tuesday, December 4, 2007, at 12:55 am. Filed under […]
2. AgentFear | December 4th, 2007 at 2:21 am
How absolutely frickin laughable.
How absolutely frickin sad.
And you dare to mention conspiracies.
So tired of W and Cheney’s B.S.
Enough already.
How ridiculously ironic. Iraq revisited.
May the parents of all who lost children in this folly find peace. May the lover’s smile again. May the children cope without the missing parent.
Undercut my ass.
Sleep well wingers. Sleep well.
3. What? | December 4th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Mark,
I can see you now sitting at your computer with your tin foil hat on doing background checks on every employee in the State Deparmtent and CIA looking for the sabateur. I bet it was the same person who order Kennedy’s death!
I can’t wait to see how this post plays out.
4. Male Zampolit--Dittohead4Life!!! | December 4th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Funny, Mark, how the left shows pure disdain for the intel community, except when they come up with something that makes Bush look bad.
Here’s your thread, sleazyjean–ready to do what you do best?
5. Male Zampolit--Dittohead4Life!!! | December 4th, 2007 at 5:47 am
I guess, once again, that our lemming puke trolls cherry-picked the column, and extracted only what would satisfy their twisted rhetoric about Iran. The intel community has been undermining the Bush administration since we liberated Iraq. The intel community is littered with career beaurocrats, just as is the State Dept. A total housecleaning is in order.
Did anyone hear Reidtard’s comments? He called for a “surge” in diplomacy with Iran. Funny how this waste of human flesh can’t be original about anything. Of course, he’s a puppet for DailyKooks and MoreOn.
Sooo, what about Ahmedinejihad’s ongoing threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and his continued support of Hezbollah?
6. searp | December 4th, 2007 at 5:55 am
The intel community could have it wrong, of course. The intel community could be working to undermine Bush, although that clearly wasn’t the case 4 years ago when a flawed NIE on Iraq came out.
Wishing something is true isn’t the same as something being true. Can those that suggest the NIE is wrong or politically motivated provide some evidence?
As to Ahmedinejad, I guess I have to point out that he doesn’t run Iran any more than Khatami ran Iran. He is a factor, but clearly not a controlling factor. Iranian nuclear work began under the Shah and has continued under all subsequent governments.
7. Male Zampolit--Dittohead4Life!!! | December 4th, 2007 at 6:04 am
May the lover’s smile again.
May AgentFart–a pseudo-intellectual–learn the proper use of an apostrophe.
As to Ahmedinejad, I guess I have to point out that he doesn’t run Iran any more than Khatami ran Iran.
Soooo, if Dick Cheney ran around, threatening to wipe Iran or China off the face of the earth, your reply would be that “Cheney doesn’t run America any more than Gore ran America?”
Oh, I forget–you kooks already think Cheney runs America…
8. steveGA | December 4th, 2007 at 7:54 am
So you haven’t read the NIE, but you’re confident that the NIE is bogus. That’s first rate work there, Noonan, perhaps you could report on some other documents you also haven’t read.
Wait, I’ll do it first. I haven’t read Caucus of Corruption, but I’m confident that its a third-rate piece of wingnut trash.
9. Christian Wright | December 4th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Talk about paranoid. 16 intelligence agencies are conspiring against Bush?
The NIE also said Iraq was did not have WMD in 2001, but Chaney kept on kicking the report back until they changed it to reflect their invasion goals. Now the NIE is finally showing the courage they should have shown in 2001.
10. slaw | December 4th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Damn that Mike McConnell!!!
11. eric | December 4th, 2007 at 9:28 am
From the declassified version of the NIE report:
We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.
We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)
We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon.
We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.
We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
12. Aaron | December 4th, 2007 at 9:43 am
awww, the little wingnuts don’t get to have their next little war. Their toys have all been taken away.
13. Aaron | December 4th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Mark -
“Aside from that, I don’t think this NIE will amount to a hill of beans as far as President Bush is concerned - it won’t be an NIE which decides what to do about Iran, but President Bush after carefully weighing all the available data.”
And what data would that be? You’ve already decided that any data from the intelligence analysts and operatives will be tossed aside. So what data are we talking about?
Is Bush going to go to war on his gut feelings? Or does Junior get his Iran intel data straight from Jesus?
You turkeys are members of a cult in severe need of deprogramming.
14. navydad | December 4th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Funny how the kooks here all live..only for the moment.
So, kooks, how long did it take Saddam or NK to assemble their nuke programs? Anyone know for sure….I thought not.
The problem with the lib mentality is, they dwell on the daily negativity supplied by the DBM-caused by BDS- and neglect the long term effects of negative attacks on our President (0-40 against congress), negative attacks on our Mighty Military (the surge is working).
From the outside, anyone in their right state of mind, would see this as a case of psychosis.
15. js | December 4th, 2007 at 10:02 am
what im confused about is….
the iranians were digging HUGE underground complexes and scattering thier programs all over the country to prevent the loss of the technology from one massive air strike
so they have all this going on, we have all the satelite coverage in the world over iran (if we dont, we really are fools) as does Israel, and we know this is going on
so how does a US based intelligence agency that admits its lack of ground sources in iran assess this type of issue and declair that iran has no program?
this is akin to being a traitor, the guy who is responsible for this is both a liar and a traitor to all Americans everywhere
this declaration is a farce, and only interfers with US interests abroad
16. Almiranta | December 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
The self-styled “AgentFear” cracks me up. He reminds me of a total loser I once hired as a general contractor, before finding out that he had faked his credentials and was not only incompetent but a crook. He had an e-mail address that included the digits “007″ and referred to himself as, among other things, the “Big Kahuna”. When all this pathetic posturing came out in the discovery before the lawsuit (which he promptly setttled out of court) it was hysterically funny. But as far as I know, even HE didn’t sink so low as to invent a comic book style character as an alter ego. (Though he did finally buy himself a wife in Russia so he could claim to be studly, though he had to steal money from an ex-girlfriend to be able to do so.)
The very idea of anyone finding the “agent” capable of inspiring fear is laughable. OK, so Mummy pwetended to be scawed when wittle agent said “Boo”, thereby instilling a very false sense of, shall we say, potency, never again to be confirmed. It don’t work now, “agent”.
AgentSilly indulges in yet more of the vile, baseless, but evidently satisfying (to a certain pathology) wallowing in blind loathing and total ignorance. And, as usual, makes no sense.
17. Almiranta | December 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am
The fact that many agencies of the government are inhabited by radical Lefties is no secret. In the past few years, they have come out and shown their true colors over and over again, secure in the belief that in this day and age they will not be prosecuted. State and the CIA are notorious for their population of BS (Budding Socialist) members.
The tinfoil hats reside firmly on the heads of the rabid conspiracy-theorists trying so desperately to construct some Bush-led plot, and eager to believe even the most foolish and transparent concoctions of their fellow travelers if they advance the notions that feed their pathology.
The presence, and effect, of the rabid Left in our schools and government agencies is documented, and even a troll like the foolishly self-appointed Agent of Fear can’t deny knowing of the many examples of their efforts to undermine the government through leaks and the dissemination of false information. It’s just that one of the characteristics of the rabid Left is the willingness to simply ignore what is inconvenient and to rewrite history as needed to shore up the party line.
18. Tractatus | December 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Talk about paranoid. 16 intelligence agencies are conspiring against Bush?
Sixteen intelligence agencies and reality! They’re all in on the conspiracy together! I mean, clearly, when they’re on one side and Bush is on the other, it’s reality and the intelligence agencies that are wrong because to Bushbots, Bush must always be right. When the facts don’t fit the wingnut narrative, clearly it is the facts that must be altered, not the narrative.
Well, at least Almiranta is still bringing some top-notch cluelessness. She actually followed up this:
The fact that many agencies of the government are inhabited by radical Lefties is no secret. In the past few years, they have come out and shown their true colors over and over again, secure in the belief that in this day and age they will not be prosecuted. State and the CIA are notorious for their population of BS (Budding Socialist) members.
with an accusation that it’s everybody else who is paranoid and “eager to believe even the most foolish and transparent concoctions of their fellow travelers if they advance the notions that feed their pathology,” not her. Yes, Almiranta, the entire government is in on an insidious socialist plot. Don’t fear those men in white coats, OK? They’re here to help you.
19. Parker | December 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I believe issue here is the lack of competence and credibility in our intelligence agencies and what to do about it.
As it stands now various government ‘intelligence’ agencies have been either off the mark or totally wrong by their own admission about events leading up to 9/11, Iraqi WMDs, and now the Iranian nuclear program. As long as this dangerous pattern of misinformation continues our national security is in jeopardy.
The notion that intelligence has been manipulated for political means either way is even more frightening than if they just simply got it wrong on their own. Here the question would be why it is so seemingly easy to not just to skew, but to outright contradict the facts and present them to our government and the American people.
After 9/11 there was a major overhaul of our intelligence agencies to better coordinate communication. The next major overhaul is due and should focus on insuring that accurate, unadulterated information is gathered and presented to our decision makers before any catastrophic decisions are made based on either faulty or manipulated intelligence.
20. Sunny | December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Well said, Tractatus!
21. Joe | December 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I haven’t read everyone’s posts yet, but I have to say… How can anyone take any post seriously that starts like this…
22. js | December 4th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
>>>>I believe issue here is the lack of competence and credibility in our intelligence agencies and what to do about it<<<<<
Thats it Parker. It took them 4 years (since 03) to assess that Iran stopped its nuclear development program at the locations that they had these programs.
Its going to take them even longer to figure out if these programs were just moved to a secret location miles underground in an attempt to hide it.
I find a lack of credibility in the NIE’s report. Why didnt it go through intelligence channels like they normally do, instead of rush to the camera’s to expose just another report…..something is fishy here.
23. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Aaron,
Your question is spot on. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is hardly some quick notes on the back of an envelope. Sixteen U.S. agencies contribute their efforts and the compilation of those are coordinated by the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Those 16 agencies include the CIA and elements within the Departments of Defense (9 elements), Energy (1 element), Homeland Security (2 elements), Justice (2 elements), State (1 element) and Treasury (1 element). The resultant document is then sent to the National Intelligence Board (NIB) which is headed by the Director of National Intelligence, currently Admiral John M. “Mike” McConnell, who was appointed by President Bush this year after careful review of his credentials by the White House. After review and, I can only imagine, various back-and-forths between the NIB and the NIC, the final document was presented to President Bush by Adm. McConnell.
So, for the “stab in the back” theorists here, apparently the President’s own appointee is “akin to being a traitor” and “a liar and a traitor to all Americans everywhere” because his responsibility as Director of National Intelligence (a position created by President Bush in December, 2004) is to oversee final approval of the NIE. It may be that President Bush’s appointee, Adm. McConnell, is suffering from “BDS” (Bush Derangement Syndrome), is a “radical left[y]” and needs to be a target of the “total housecleaning [that] is in order.” (I believe Joseph Stalin’s formulation might be the appropriate one for that view, “Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”)
Now Mark, who is plainly capable of rationality, is reduced to a conspiracy claim:
Apparently, this elusive “someone at State and/or CIA” is not only trying to “undercut the President” but, by logical extension, desires the country of Iran “to obtain nuclear weapons”. Not only do we have this “someone” out there but they are so powerful in their ability to conspire that they can either, 1) co-opt the President’s own appointee and make Adm. McConnell part of the conspiracy, or 2) prevent Adm. McConnell from seeing through the conspiracy and sitting on the NIE until he can get it “corrected”. Honestly, Mark, do you own an autographed copy of J. Edgar Hoover’s Masters of Deceit?
Of course, the rational fall back position here for the conspiracy-minded is, “Okay, the NIE is correct, but Iran is still engaging in activities that could allow it to eventually build one or more nuclear warheads.” That could be what Mark was alluding to here:
This is fair enough. No rational resident of Planet Earth wants any more than the current nine nuclear-armed states. However, courtesy of Dr. A. Q. Khan of Pakistan, who was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf in 2004 for his role in exporting nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and N. Korea, we have cause to worry about Iran. Libya, without the use of military force, gave up its nuclear weapons program. North Korea has nuclear weapons and there is no talk of using preemptive military force against it. Now, we have reason to think Iran may be seeking to build nuclear warheads, but not soon.
So, what to do? The putative worst-case scenario is Iran gaining nuclear weapons with a desire to threaten its neighbors. Of course, having a nuclear weapon and being able to deliver it are different problems. The reality for a nuclear-armed Iran is that they know that they have Israel nearby with both the existing nuclear warheads (estimated between 75 and 200) and a highly capable ability to deliver them. They also know that they live within delivery range of any number of nuclear weapons from all the major nuclear powers (U.S., Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and India). While some number of Iranians undoubtedly hope to have nuclear weapons, there are just as undoubtedly some number of Iranians who realize that they can’t overtly use any such weapons without committing national suicide.
This leads us inexorably to the real “dark[] suspicion” of Norman Podheretz, a foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani, and his admirers. Because they are from the Middle East (only 3% are Arabs) and the country is predominately Muslim then they are part of the inherently irrational Muslim IslamoFascist conspiracy that cannot be trusted to not commit national suicide in an effort to do…something…take over the world…make us all become Muslims…make me wear a burqa. Of course, it is useful to note that the very same relentlessness of purpose, complete lack of moral values and total contempt for America and the West were the hallmarks of the U.S.S.R. and “Red China” touted to us for decades. Of course, as we learned, the animosities felt towards us by the Soviets and Chinese were, as you would reasonably expect of human societies, not universally felt and varied over time based on our actions and their internal politics. Of course, this time, we are presumably assured, the conspiracy really is being run by people who are like that and we must be vigilant!
P.S. Let me save someone the trouble. Yes, I must be a “useful idiot”.
24. Joe | December 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
An actual quote by George W. Bush…
“I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program,” Bush said. “The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.”
So they halted the program, but they COULD restart it.
So obviously preemptively striking them is still an option, right???
25. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Okay, let’s cue President Bush this morning:
And…
And…
And…
Thank you, Mr. President.
(Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071204-4.html)
Now, do any of the stab-in-the-back theorists here have any questions for the President of the United States?
26. Ricorun | December 4th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Come on now Diana, it’s long been suspected that the president is part of the government conspiracy against Bush.
Seriously though, it appears that Israel isn’t so sure that Iran has halted their nuclear weapons program. And it should also be noted that Iran has consistently claimed that they had no nuclear program. If there is any international concensus, it is that at some point Iran was lying, whether or not they are now. There’s no question that Iran could become a danger in years to come. But a pee-your-pants, WWIII level of danger? I’ve always been a bit skeptical about that. As demonstrated in North Korea, even if they get to, or even cross the threshold, there are ways of dealing with them. Of course there is also the question of whether they will transfer their technology to some other country. But a Sunni-dominated country? Seems unlikely. Anyway, in that regard there are bigger worries than Iran — namely, North Korea and Pakistan.
27. Joe | December 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
But…but…but… Diana… what about all the underground bunkers?
But…but…but… if this is true, how can we attack them???
Maybe we can attack Syria instead since all of Iraq’s WMDs were brought there and hidden.
28. Jay Gaultieri | December 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
You’ve GOT to be kidding. 16 intelligence agencies conspired together to LIE about a nuclear weapons program being developed by an Islamic Middle Eastern nation because they don’t like Bush?
Whatever you guys are on, cut the dose.
29. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Ricorun,
It’s interesting that there is so little concern expressed anywhere, least of all by those obsessing over Iran, over the fact that we have an unstable nuclear-armed Muslim state, Pakistan, with a history of warfare with its neighbor, the nuclear-armed nation of India. If someone were trying to make a rational case for preemptive military action to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, then Pakistan is ground-zero, not Iran. I am not making that case because I believe that there is a reason that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan has not happened. It is that both sides, even (surprise!) the Muslims, realize that they there will be no winners if they engage in thermonuclear war.
30. Jen | December 4th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
This is priceless. You cannot satirize these people, they do it themselves.
“it won’t be an NIE which decides what to do about Iran, but President Bush after carefully weighing all the available data.”
Sure, when I think Triumphs of Empirical Thinking, I do think of Bush, except I am a little bit troubled by his telling us that the DNI told him that they had some new information on Iran for him, but that they didn’t tell him what it was. And he didn’t ask.
BUSH: I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.
Later, when a reporter followed-up on this statement, Bush asserted no one ever told him to stop ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran:
REPORTER: Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.
It’s one of life’s chicken and egg imponderables, are they more incompetent or more malicious? Personally, I go back and forth. Frequently, I think “malicious” combined with an incredible faith in the idiocy of the American public that they might actually *believe* this crap, but then I take note of the fact that they are going to lose every election higher than dogcatcher in 2008 and it’s hard not to swing back to “incompetent”.
31. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Welllll, did our intelligence agencies know about the Pakistan bomb? Or the Russian bomb? The Chinese bomb?
The actual wording of the NIE says “plausible but unlikely”. I wish it was a little more specific.
But I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. Intelligence is not perfect. Not now and not when we went into Iraq.
32. Mark Noonan | December 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
You lefties really need to address the substance here rather than just pretending that I said something I didn’t say…an NIE says there is high confidence that Iran halted its program in 2003 even though a 2005 NIE said there was high confidence that Iran had NOT halted its program…and, meanwhile, even this NIE says that Iran continues to enrich uranium which is generally only useful for a weapons program…in other words, they are highly confident that it has been stopped AND highly confident that it is ongoing…the undercut part of the report is whomever put this out as an “Iran stopped its nuke program” report. That is, plain and simple, BS…the NIE itself denies what the NIE is saying.
This is yet another version of the Downing Street Memo where someone makes out that a document says the opposite of what it says…for you on the left this works like a charm because you will uncritically accept ANYTHING said which works against Bush Administration policy.
33. Mark Noonan | December 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Diana,
President Bush long ago learned not to argue with an MSM “memo o’ the day” - the MSM is saying its a report proving Iran has stopped its nuke program, and President Bush isn’t going to try and shout over that noise…so, “good job, boys and girls, and I thank you for your efforts”…meanwhile, the real issue is actually beign addressed by adults in the Bush Administration who just don’t care what the MSM is saying.
34. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Just remember that in Foreign Affairs and in many speeches and on the Senate floor one person in particular has accused Bush of being too weak on Iran and of not taking the threat seriously enough.
That person is……. Hillary Clinton.
“… and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons.”
“…The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.”
“… Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
What a she-hawk!
35. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Kahn,
Okay, so you’re the President. What do you do? Since “intelligence is not perfect”, despite President Bush speaking in very positive terms about the reforms of the intelligence community he instituted, what do you do in the face of all this uncertainty? Do you bomb a sovereign country because you’re “uncertain” that they might be building a weapon that, given the example of Pakistan and North Korea, might well just sit unused until its components decay so much that you can’t even be certain that it will detonate anymore? What’s your advice to the President of the United States at this point? At what point does uncertainty justify bombing another country?
Mark,
Do, please. You’re capable of rational debate. Spare me the incredibly patronizing “adults in the Bush Administration” meme which, of course, translates into the “all you little people just need to trust the Government, they Know Things, they are Good and they are here to Protect Us“. This is an especially egregious example of self-hating behavior when it comes from the same people who sanctified President Reagan who famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
Kahn,
Good call! Unfortunately, in the growing convergence between the two parties, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated in multiple instances that she is willing to start unprovoked wars over nebulous “threats to our interests”. Hence, I have little desire in seeing her get the nomination.
36. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Diana, but we haven’t bombed Iran. Sabre rattling is in fact diplomacy. Looks like it worked.
According to the NIE, it appears that going into Iraq stopped the nuke programs in Libya and Iran! Though Libya admitted it because they wanted to come back into the community - Iran didn’t because they’re making a power play.
You’re welcome.
37. SteaM | December 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Or maybe Bush is trying to cover his a$$ because Cheney’s energy task force plan to get American oil companies in so they can profit off the oil fields in Iraq and Iran is failing. And people are calling them on their lies. Not enough people are calling them on the root of the issue. Oil.
I know, I know. Oil has nothing to do with it. It’s all those nucular weapons that don’t exist.
38. lenny | December 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
markaspicion:
i just skimmed/read the posts
about your agreement with the suspicious conspiracy theory?
you should read what you wrote back to yourself
really……
you earthlings are bringing the crazy
one more time….
congrats
39. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Kahn,
Has it ever occurred to you that “saber rattling”, as in the endless cheer leading in the media in 2002 that preceded our invasion of a sovereign nation which had not attacked us, might have reasonably allowed those Iranians who favor seeking nuclear weapons to argue against logical resistance to that idea by saying, “We need something big to protect us.” Logically, the Iranians have no practical basis for possessing nuclear warheads. They are, as much as anything else, self-deterring.
40. phnx | December 4th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”
Gee moonbats, exactly what happened around that time to make them stop???
Wasn’t this about the same time that Libya decided that they really didn’t want a nuclear program???
Thank you President Bush for your decisive action.
“we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.”
Gee what do you suppose could convince them to start again?? Could it have anything to do the the defeatocrats beating the drums that we’ve lost, we’re in a quagmire, let’s cut and run?
Thanks defeatocrats for undermining the foreign policy efforts of the Executive Branch and providing aid and comfort to our enemies.
41. phnx | December 4th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I love how you moonbats are always so animated about anything which you perceive to be damaging to the adminstration. That seems to be more important to all of you than actually defeating our enemies and protecting our borders.
42. AgentFear | December 4th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Bravo Diana,
Take a lesson Almiranta.
43. Ricorun | December 4th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
phnx: Wasn’t this about the same time that Libya decided that they really didn’t want a nuclear program???
I’m sure that had a lot to do with it. A very good analysis of the sequence of events can be found here. Basically, when the Italians seized a German ship carrying 1,000 centrifuges headed for Libya, the Khan network quickly unraveled like an old sweater. Was the invasion of Iraq a factor? Maybe. Ghadaffi claims it wasn’t, but who believes Ghadaffi? Was it either a necessary or sufficient factor? Well, certainly not sufficient. As for necessary, I guess people will debate that forever. It really does depend on what you want to believe, and it’s impossible to say what would have happened in the absence of the Iraq invasion. But definitely that ship seizure was an essential component. And that wouldn’t have happened without the Proliferation Security Initiative, signed by 11 developed countries to stop and search vessels in their territories suspected of carrying banned weapons or technology. That initiative has been paying all kinds of dividends. The Libyan intercept is certainly the biggie. But other notable intercepts are the ballistic missile shipments from North Korea to Yemen in Dec 2003 and the shipments of European munitions to Iraq (presumably) through Malta last year.
44. js | December 4th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
what im confused about is….
the iranians were digging HUGE underground complexes and scattering thier programs all over the country to prevent the loss of the technology from one massive air strike
So how did the NIE get into all thier underground bunkers and figure out that the Iranians were not trying to develope a bomb?
And even more so…what logistic program do they use to determine that the Ruskies are not helping them hide it? Certainly, they still have no clue what the Ruskies goals in Iraq were with Saddam, let alone how to account for all the WMD that multiple nations intelligence agencies concede existed.
45. AgentFear | December 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
You want conspiracy? I’ll give you conspiracy.
Do you honestly believe that Mr. Decider was given this information LAST WEEK?
Here’s the kicker, he’s going to review it again for accuracy.
I hope, pray, what ever words it takes, that Mr. CIC somehow, someway, gets information as important as this a wee bit sooner?
LAST WEEK?
Cut the crap. I’ll give you conspiracy. I have full confidence that Mr. McFlightsuit KNEW long, long ago.
You know what’s sad? NO ONE, believes a damn word out of his mouth anymore.
NO ONE.
Not me. Not most of America, and the entire world.
Only here, at Blogs for Victory.
46. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Well, yes Dianna it occurred to me. But I rejected the idea as wrong. Libya stopped (a major item overlooked by many) and at about the same time so did Iran. Lesson THEY learned, the USA has an awesome military and is serious about this nuke crap. Lesson WE learned - there may not have been nukes in Iraq like we thought there were, but going there helped end programs in Libya and Iran. A victory - yes?
47. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Agent - He just didn’t want to brag. I mean Libya, North Korea, AND Iran stopping their weapons programs?
You think about THAT, OK? Sounds objectively like whatever the hell Bush has done, we’re safer because of it.
Oh, whine and bitch if you must. I know that hate substitutes for facts on your side. Truth is, that makes THREE nuclear programs stopped.
48. Male Zampolit--Dittohead4Life!!! | December 4th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
That seems to be more important to all of you than actually defeating our enemies and protecting our borders.
phnx, President Bush IS their enemy. Their only enemy.
Mrk, what I find funny about this is the way the DBDM is reporting that Iran has terminated its nuclear weapons program, when in fact, the program, if not still ongoing, is merely suspended. More media bias, for sure.
Remember, with the exception of the U.S., all nations that acquired/developed nukes, did so under the cloud of secrecy…
49. CallMeTeach | December 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Okay, I can’t read anymore of the BS that is spewing forth from the old regime here at BFV. I am glad however to see the great number of decenters that have found their way here. Conspiracies seem to be rampant here and not coming from the “leftie kooks” but from the far-right wingers. First it was the CNN thing where all of the questions and facilitators of the debate were fake Republicans out to get the candidates and now this. Saying that all 16 inteligence agencies have conspired togeter against Bush is as ludicrous as saying 9/11 was an inside job. People assume that the number of people it would take carry out such conspiracies are all able to keep their mouths shut and are all on the same page. IMPOSSIBLE!! Another thing that I would like to point out is the pre 9/11 intelligence and Iraq intelligence flawed reports claims. If you people would take the time to do just a smidge of research you would find that both were highly accurate. Both Clinton and Bush received NIEs stating that there were plans for terrorists to comadere planes and fly them into American buildings yet each time it was considered unlikely. The NIE on Iraq always stated that Suddam had not reconstitutes his nuclear weapons program nor was there any proof of WMDs. Envoy after envoy stated the same as well and still Bush insisted on it and so we are where we are now. PLEASE STOP THE MADDNESS!!
50. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
MZ - um, so did we. The Manhattan project was so secret that Vice-president Truman didn’t know about it until he became president.
Otherwise, I agree.
But what are the libs bitching about? Libya, Korea, AND Iran stop (or suspend) their programs after we kick ass in Iraq?
51. Jeremiah | December 4th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Both Clinton and Bush received NIEs–CallMeTeach,
Then that means Bill had to receive the NIEs, first…So, why didn’t Bill act accordingly?
Jeremiah
52. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Callme- envoy after envoy? Name five. Cite their statements.
53. Sirkowski | December 4th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
What’s next, 9/11 was an inside job? Lose the tin foil hat.
54. Ricorun | December 4th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Kahn: Truth is, that makes THREE nuclear programs stopped.
And what is the common thread? I would say sanctions. The Libyans were about ready to come to an agreement to end the sanctions against them (stemming from the plane bombing over Lockerbee, Scotland) when they were caught with their hand in the nuclear cookie jar. When that shipment was intercepted by the Italians they were suddenly confronted with the worst of both worlds (no nuclear capacity and no end to sanctions) when they thought they were on the verge of the best of both. Obviously I can’t say that the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with their decision to give up the goods on the Kahn cabal, but it seems to me that there’s enough there without the Iraq invasion to compel them to do what they did. That intercept led to the discovery that both Iran and North Korea were working on uranium enrichment projects. Sanctions were soon imposed on both. But their reactions were different. In the case of North Korea, they responded by kicking out the IAEA inspectors and accelerated their plutonium weaponization (which, by the way, everyone knew they had) to the point where they exploded, well… something. It was very low yield. The question is whether it was meant to be low yield. Likewise, to this day (so far as we commoners are concerned anyway), it’s still not clear how far they got with their hidden uranium enrichment project. My guess is… not very far. But again, it was only through international sanctions, and only when Bush finally agreed to talk with them, that the impasse finally broke. Finally, in the case of Iran, the recent NIE clearly states that Iran has shown every indication of responding to sanctions.
I’m not saying that sabre rattling had no effect, but it seems rather clear that diplomacy, backed by sanctions, has had a significant impact in all three cases.
One also has to consider the potential effects that “saber rattling” has had on other countries. You can consider that in both larger and smaller contexts. Afghanistan is not very stable. Neither is Lebanon, or Pakistan, or Egypt. The Palestine problem is finally being addressed, but the issues on the table haven’t changed much since they were first proposed in 2002. In the mean time China has strengthened their relationship with many countries in the area — as well as Africa and South America.
55. USA | December 4th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“Yet another lesson in the absolute necessity of any future GOP Administration to fire each and every person hired or promoted by a previous Democratic Administration”
…if you don’t want any intellegent people around to stop you devils. You have to fire any desent huh?…your ideas are very weak. Lies probably. Can you comprehend anything I say? Mark, Conservatives? The few devils patting you on your back aren’t going destroy the fact that most of the posters are against you.
56. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Rico - sanctions were PART of OUR solution, yes. But they were ALL in place before Iraq. And all three programs stopped AFTER Iraq.
Give credit where it’s due. Otherwise, well you just look petty.
57. USA | December 4th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Just look the posts and open your eyes. Liberals give facts. All the Conservatives can do is post personal insults in the face of proof and convincing counter arguement. Conservatives are worried about apostrophes and tell Liberals they are stupid; which has no substance or fact to it, only a psychological projection of their own stupidity, to deal with thier anxiety of being stupid, so their demonic egos can control their delusional lives.
Conservatives are so crazy, I can say this and conservatives don’t even hear it.
58. USA | December 4th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
“Mark, Do, please. You’re capable of rational debate.”
No. I have never seen any conservative even begin a debate on any conservative ideology/issue…conservatives always fall flat on their face, everytime.
It doesn’t matter what us intellegent people say to them anyway!…their egos are such a cancer in their head: information & facts & proof will go in one ear and out the other just so their ego can keep from being wrong.
Or like the psychopaths [Conservatives] they are, they will psychologically project.
59. liberalT | December 4th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
ah - I love the fact that Mark starts his post with
“I HAVEN”T READ THE REPORT”.. Thats classic. YOU HAVEN”T EVEN READ IT - however you conclude that clearly that it must be a democrat in the CIA trying to undercut the President. Besides the obvious fact that you are delusional beyond belief (care to share any actual evidence that he is trying to be undercut ?).I have got a piece that directly contradicts that - his own national intelligence adviser said yesterday that Bush was told about this as early as August - and that further Cheney had delayed the release of the report for at least a year which indicates that the administration knew full well…
So lets see if we can recap:
(1) Bush lied again about not knowing about this - he is directly contradicted by even people in his administration
(2) Bush continues to beat the war drums despite the fact that all actual evidence is that Iran doesn’t have a viable weapons program
(3) and Mark - doesn’t think its needed to actually read the document because he already knows a priori that it must be a democrat trying to undercut him
I am becoming more and more convinced that you are not just ideologically challenged but severely in need of mental help
60. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
USA - Sanctions were PART of OUR solution, yes. But they were ALL in place before Iraq. And all three programs stopped AFTER Iraq.
Give credit where it’s due. Bush policy may have gone into Iraq on false information. But it may well have directly lead to removing three deadly threats. And, it may yet lead to peace in Israel - though honestly I doubt it.
You can read a calender, can’t you? Thats not an insult, is it?
What “facts” do you offer? I noticed none in your post. Please enlighten us!
61. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Kahn,
That was an honest answer and I appreciate it. I obviously don’t share your rejection, but if you considered it, that’s more than what many seem to do.
Unfortunately, I have to turn around and ask you why you’re citing North Korea as a success. They were labeled as part of the Axis of Evil ™ and now have nuclear weapons.
Also, I can’t say I share your enthusiasm for high-school terminology (”…after we kick ass in Iraq”), given that as we close in on five years after invading that country, we’re still hemorrhaging lives (37 last month, 3,883 to date), our military readiness (the desert is hard on expensive equipment) and money (slightly more than $27 million per day). For all of that effort, we have a highly ineffectual Shi’a-dominated government in Baghdad which is on friendly terms with the Shi’a-dominated government in Tehran.
My question to the “we kicked their ass” contingent has always been this, “Why didn’t we quote Julius Caesar and say ‘Veni, Vidi, Vici‘ followed by ‘Don’t make us come back again’ and pack up our gear and leave within the first month, or maybe two?” Assuming that it was a whiz-bang of an idea to invade in the first place, we would have demonstrated the object lesson at infinitely lesser cost and with all our capability preserved to do it again had it been “necessary”. Instead, we’ve borrowed and continue to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars, largely from the Chinese, in U.S. government-issued notes of indebtedness (quaintly referred to as T-bills and government bonds) with no actual end in sight. Anyone tried to trade your dollars for any other major world currency lately. It is not pretty.
62. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
LiberaT - don’t you get it? So what? He got them to stop! Your upset about rhetoric when a nuclear thret has been removed. Three threats in fact. Doesn’t that matter? is you hatred of George Bush so great you can’t see he eliminated three enemy nuclear programs?
Do you understand what nukes do? I mean really, in terms of radius of damage? People killed? People maimed and burned? People with radiation poisoning? It’s the single biggest accomplishment of the decade.
I say, you may not agree with or understand his technique - but you CAN’T argue with the results.
Or do you prefer that Iran, North Korea, and Libya still be working on nuclear weapons?
Mark - sorry bud, but I think you missed the point of this announcement. It means the GOP literally saved us. All of us.
Sing it from the hillsides.
63. Casper | December 4th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
USA,
“Liberals give facts. All the Conservatives can do is post personal insults in the face of proof and convincing counter arguement.”(57)
“Or like the psychopaths [Conservatives] they are, they will psychologically project.” (58)
So tell me how you are better than many of the conservatives on this blog? I’m not saying you are any worse, I just don’t see raising the conversation level.
64. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Casper,
Sadly, I must agree. Aside from the fact that it’s just ill-mannered and undignified, it doesn’t do anything but play directly into the authoritarian mindset requirement of feeling persecuted to throw insults and call names.
65. Casper | December 4th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Kahn,
The only people who really know why Iran and Libya stopped their nuke programs are members of the governments of those two countries. You could be right or you could be wrong, but it is hardly a slam dunk.
66. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Diana and USA - you offer no facts while saying we don’t.
I give you three. Under George Bush and after we invaded Iraq; Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons, Libya stopped developing nuclear weapons, and North Korea stopped developing nuclear weapons.
Now Casper makes a point.
I don’t know if watching the American military chew up and spit out the armed forces of Iraq had anything to do with it.
I don’t know if the Sixth Fleet (passing by Libya), or the new American divisions on Iran’s border had anything to do with it. I don’t know that the the reasoning we gave for crushing Iraq’s government (developing nukes) had anything to do with it.
Perhaps seeing Sadaam living in a hole didn’t phase them. Perhaps, they knew they would take solace in the guerrilla warfare that might destroy their people should they fall. Perhaps.
But it sure looks like maybe, just maybe Iraq might have been on their minds.
But continue YOUR insults please.
67. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I just realized why you don’t have a counter to this argument. Ya see, i thought it up on my own. This is the only blog I post at. I don’t get my arguments and my ideas ready made from a hate site.
Go get your programming. Post my story and see how it’s attacked.
Remember, you’ll be arguing that stopping nuclear weapons is bad. Might take so elaborate logic.
68. The Real Sporer | December 4th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
The inability of liberals to argue beyond childlike ad hominems continues to amaze me. Even after all of these years. But then again, when seeking to somehow minimize the risk of the most persistenly anti-American nation on Earth does leave the advocate grasping for straws so I can’t say that I should be surprised after all.
Has the intellegence community not been leaking classified information that frustrates administration policy, and doing it for years?
As for the Iranian fans, why is Iran continuing to spin those centrifuges? So they have nuclear fuel ready to go when its safe to start building nukes.
By the way, the Iranians seem to have stopped working on nukes when we occupied their neighbor Iraq. Maybe the presence of 150,000 US combat soldiers next door, and the willingness to invade and destroy Saddam, might have just terrified the thugs in Iraq.
69. Casper | December 4th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Kahn,
Who was arguing that stopping nuclear weapons is bad?
70. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Not you Casper.
Oh, and liberals. Better check your dates. UN sanctions were not yet in place when Iran supposedly stopped their nuclear weapons program.
However, the Pakistani nuke secrets ring was busted (by us), We were in Iraq, and we were on the other side of Iran in Afghanistan. Note, we had access to air bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan (still do, by the way).
71. Faceplant | December 4th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
“I haven’t read the actual NIE,”
What a suprise.
“but it is reported that while the NIE is highly confident that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Iran continues to enrich a sort of uranium which is really only useful in a nuclear weapons program.”
Of course if you had actually read the report you would know that it says nothing of the sort.
Let me help you out here,
“D. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least
some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it
has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired
from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material
for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would
need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge
with high confidence it has not yet done.”
But when you live in a fact free world, Marky, this stuff doesn’t really matter does it? You want your glorious war (for others to fight that is) and you will do anything to get it.
72. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Note to Mark and other conservatives - my arguments above are the way to go with this. This could be used in the ‘08 campaign. Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Think about it. This isn’t a defeat, it’s evidence of victory.
Look how it shut up the ultra libs above. They immediately degenerated into insults and logged off. We should spread this story far and wide.
73. Faceplant | December 4th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Almiranta,
“The fact that many agencies of the government are inhabited by radical Lefties is no secret.”
Nice that you conviniently ignore that fact that this NIE was reviewed and approved by the National Intelligence Board, which is chaired by the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, a man appointed by George W. Bush. And is made up almost entirely of Bush appointed agency heads.
You people seriously think that all 16 intelligence agencies are involved in this grand conspiracy against the President simply because you didn’t like what they had to say. George Bush said that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, so that means that Iran must be, right?
Jesus… Grand conspiracy by the intelligence community. Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster. And you people call liberals unhinged? You really have no idea how completely foolish you people sound right now do you?
74. liberalT | December 4th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
how exactly did Bush do this? There decision to stop pursuing nuclear technology had nothing to do with Bush - indeed it was something that was negotiated between the leaders of Iran , the IAEA, and the UN - most of it before Bush was president . In fact the leaders of the UN and the IAEA along with independent intelligent agencies concluded that if anything the Bush rhetorick delayed and threatened the pre-existing agreements..
none of this is in response to Mark’s insane rants though - what about all of those
75. Faceplant | December 4th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
“You lefties really need to address the substance here rather than just pretending that I said something I didn’t say…an NIE says there is high confidence that Iran halted its program in 2003 even though a 2005 NIE said there was high confidence that Iran had NOT halted its program”
So that must mean the older report is right? Why is that Marky? Becuase it says what you want it to? God forbid we acquired new intelligence on Iran.
“and, meanwhile, even this NIE says that Iran continues to enrich uranium which is generally only useful for a weapons program…in other words, they are highly confident that it has been stopped AND highly confident that it is ongoing”
And you generally don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/Aboutusec_enrichment.asp
“Uranium enrichment is a critical step in transforming natural uranium into nuclear fuel to produce electricity. Uranium is a naturally occurring element containing U-235 and U-238 isotopes. Only the U-235 isotope is fissionable. Enrichment is the process of increasing the concentration of U-235 and decreasing that of U-238.”
The United States enriches uranium all the time for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. In fact you have to enrich Uranium if you want to use it in nuclear power plants.
To say that enriched uranium is only useful for making nuclear weapons demonstrates either a complete lack of knowledge about the topic you are blogging about, or a deliberate attempt to be intellectually dishonest. I’m willing to bet it’s a little of both.
76. Casper | December 4th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Ok, bottom line. The world is a little safer than we thought. If Kahn’s right, and it’s because of the Iraq war, then YIPEE!! We got something positive out of the war and the occupation. If not then YIPEE!! We have one less thing to worry about and a lot less reason to jump into another war regardless of what brought this about.
77. liberalT | December 4th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
please go actually read the report Mark. Don’t just listen to what your pundits tell you it says go read it.
78. Xango Annie | December 4th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
USA has one of the worst cases of projection I have ever seen…med adjustment on aisle 57
79. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Kahn,
You keep claiming North Korea as a victory of some kind. Is that because they currently possess nuclear arms? I thought the idea was to prevent that.
80. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Faceplant,
Go re-read what I wrote - break out the dictionary if any of the words are hard to understand. I didn’t write what you think I wrote.
81. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 1:09 am
LiberalT,
Have you read it?
82. Mark Noonan | December 5th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Things which don’t strike our lefty friends as odd:
1. Two years ago, the very same NIE said that Iran was for-sure making nukes.
2. Iran has been rapidly increasing its enrichment capability.
3. The bloodthirsty rhetoric from Iran has INCREASED over the past couple years.
4. Israel just bombed a suspected nuke site in Iran-allied Syria.
5. Iran is busily dispersing and hardening its nuclear facilities.
With all that, our lefties take the NIE’s “stopped in 2003″ as gospel…they won’t think beyond that. They’ve got what they think is a BUSH LIED!!!! moment, and thus their brains shut down as their mouths open wider to shout all the more…
For the alleged reality based community, you lefties sure don’t seem interested in using the intellect God gave you…and, you know, at Judgement you will have to account for how you used His gifts. Might want to start thinking about thinking - independent thought only hurts the first time you try it.
83. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Casper - “The world is a little safer than we thought?” Give me a break.
Do some research on the damage one MODERN nuke could do. I can’t believe it, I’m having to explain to a liberal how bad atomic bombs are.
Diana - Korea tried one explosion that appears to have been a dud. We don’t think they have them. Maybe they do? I don’t think so.
Interesting - it’s possible that George Bush actually did a great thing here. Does the derangement preclude that you actually look into and think a little? Posters above (like faceplant) who are pasting into this blog without reading the discussion make me laugh. You have one half of you saying Bush wants war and this is bad, the news. And when I pooint out that if they stopped its a victory, you throw the breaks on so fast.
So which IS it? Did they stop in 2003? BEFORE the sanctions? And why?
Or, are they still a threat?
Logic, I know you aren’t used to it. Hate really is a poor substitute you know.
George Bush’s preemptive attack against Iraq may have ended the nuclear programs in three hostile nations. One of which is still technically at war with us (only an armistice was signed in Korea).
So - is that bad or good?
84. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 2:18 am
You know liberals, all I’m doing is agreeing with you version of the facts and judging if thats good or not.
You tell us
- Libya -
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
- North Korea -
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
- Iran -
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
If you think they stopped, then I’m right!! If you don’t think they stopped them Mark is right!!!
So - you decide: Which Republican is right?
85. What? | December 5th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Mark writes:
an NIE says there is high confidence that Iran halted its program in 2003 even though a 2005 NIE said there was high confidence that Iran had NOT halted its program…and, meanwhile, even this NIE says that Iran continues to enrich uranium which is generally only useful for a weapons program…
Actually Mark, enriched uranium is used in power generationas well. It is the level to which the uranium is enriched that determines what its use is. Higher the enrichment more likely it is used in a weapon.
86. Male Zampolit--Dittohead4Life!!! | December 5th, 2007 at 5:55 am
…if you don’t want any intellegent people around to stop you devils. You have to fire any desent huh?…your ideas are very weak. Lies probably. Can you comprehend anything I say? Mark, Conservatives? The few devils patting you on your back aren’t going destroy the fact that most of the posters are against you.
UneducatedStupidArse, could you please rewrite this jibberish? Other than the last sentence, nothing else makes sense.
As for the last sentence, Mark, USA has a point. The fact that you are so tolerant of these puke lemming trolls has driven a lot of your supporters away. A lot of them have gone to blogs where lefty gloating and gotchafests aren’t tolerated. That’s all the majority of these trolls do here, with the exception of Diana, extramedium, and a scant few others. The rest of them–liberetardT, lenny, What?, plaincowjane, Sunny, USA, Aairhead, et.al., are a nuisance and should be banned, before more of your supporters desert.
87. Christian Wright | December 5th, 2007 at 7:31 am
The reason why the US hates Iran is be because it refused to be a vassal of the US.
Iran has the democracy that Bush claims he is trying to export to the Middle East.
The popularly elected Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown in a CIA plot in 1953 because he nationalized the oil. The US and the British put the Shah of Iran in his place. The Shah murdered all proponents of democracy and brutalized his people in ways that would make Saddam cower. It was under the Shah’s brutal oppression that the population turned to religion. It was only under that oppression that this religion became militant, until it overthrew the Shah in favor of theocratic form of government. Then the US sided with Saddam to destroy Iran.
The Persians know their history so they know who the evil empire is. It is the US. Were it not for the US greed for Persian oil, Iran would be celebrating its 56th year as a democracy.
Please review the link for Iranian history.
http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html
88. Casper | December 5th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Kahn,
I know what a modern Nuke can do. That’s my point. If Iran is no longer trying to build them, then wouldn’t the world be safer?
89. Parker | December 5th, 2007 at 8:16 am
I have a difficult time understanding why it took five years to come to the conclusion that Iran has halted its nuclear program. I’m not saying it’s not true (at this point I don’t know what to believe), I’m just curious as to why we were fed ‘false’ information for five years?
Also, if I ran halted its nuclear program in 2003, why didn’t they open their facilities for international inspection at that time in exchange for economic concessions as did Libya and N. Korea? These countries have little else to gain by developing nuclear arms other than to use them as extortion tactics. Therefore it would make no sense for Iran to ’secretly’ shut down their nuclear program.
90. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 8:37 am
um….Christian,
The Pahlavi family had ruled Iran since 1919 and the Shah had always been the government figurehead following his fathers death. Mossadegh was APPOINTED the prime minister and ATTEMPTED to nationalize the oil industry against the wishes of the Shah and was subsequently deposed by the Iranian military with the help of the US and British.
Just FYI
And Iran is hardly the wonderful democracy you allude to.
91. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Casper - not just a “little” bit safer. As your post said.
If Bush really did get all three of these countries to drop their programs - then it’s a major accomplishment.
92. Ricorun | December 5th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Kahn, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I had stuff to do.
You tell us
- Libya -
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
They stopped when their turn-key uranium enrichment plant was discovered on ship before it was delivered. I’m sure they spent a lot of money on it, and not getting it was a major, probably fatal blow to their nuclear aspirations. At the time they were also coming close to an agreement for sanctions to be lifted. So the revelation put that in serious jeopardy. So, irrespective of Iraq, the choices were: (1) to continue their nuclear program (which was now in shambles) and continue suffering under sanctions, or (2) to drop their nuclear program and get the sanctions lifted. It’s possible that Iraq had some influence on that decision, but it’s also possible that it didn’t. They certainly said it didn’t.
- North Korea -
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
The information obtained from Libya revealed the secret enrichment programs conducted by North Korea (and Iran). When confronted with it they responded by kicking out the inspectors and reviving work building a plutonium device — work that had been shut down for over a decade by virtue of the agreement reached with the Clinton administration. Finally, earlier this year they came back to the table when international pressure was stepped up. Again, Iraq may have had something to do with their decisions, but if anything the influence was likely to have been more negative than positive.
- Iran -
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
The information obtained from Libya revealed their secret enrichment program too. The current NIE indicates they stopped as a result of international pressure following that revelation. But in their case the invasion of Iraq (and perhaps to a lesser extent Afghanistan) almost certainly assisted in that decision. Saddam was their mortal enemy. One of Saddam’s captors recently revealed that one of the big reasons Saddam lied about his WMD was to thwart possible hostile intentions on the part of Iran. I’m sure the Iranians felt the same way. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was also unfriendly to Iran. Suddenly there wasn’t so much reason for nuclear protection as before.
That’s how I’d answer your questions. As you can see, the question is rather complicated. It might not be spot on, either. On the other hand, just because the Iraq invasion closely preceded other things don’t necessarily mean they are related. In this case there is also something else that closely preceded the other things as well — intercepting Libya’s nuclear shipment. And the cause and effect there is much clearer.
93. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Christian wright,
Interesting link … the fact that most people, myself included, in this country have a serious lack of histroy education is a big part of the problem. Of course some people have very little ability to take the time to learn the history. They accept what they are told in 30 minute news shows that are made up mostly of entertainment, celebrity, and weather items.
“1951- 1953 — Iran’s Majles passed a law sponsored by the nationalistic (soon to be prime minister) Dr. Mossadeq to nationalize Iran’s oil from British control. The British, enraged by the threat to their oil concessions, froze all of Iran’s Sterling assets and took their case to the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled in Iran’s favor. Undeterred, the British placed a total trade embargo on Iran and enforced it with their navy, leading to the collapse of Iran’s economy. Citing the threat of a communist takeover, British Intelligence and the CIA sponsored a coup to topple Dr. Mossadeq’s government. In the midst of the coup, the young Shah, having thought the plan had failed, left the country. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Mossadeq’s government was overthrown and the Shah was put back in power.”
94. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 11:20 am
SteaM,,It appears as though you still need more history lessens:
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran………..was the monarch of Iran from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy.
The Shah came to power during World War II, after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah’s rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death.[citation needed] The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.[citation needed] Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh.
95. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Rico - excellent answer thanks. You’re right - it’s complicated. But I think that Iraq probably had a big psychological effect whether its admitted or not.
But the big picture is, that the current administration is not the big scary march-to-war monster that it is portrayed as. Here we have three hostile nations that through a combination of sticks, carrots, intercepting material, and intelligence work have stopped their programs. And yes, it’s big and complicated. But also yes - President Bush’s administration was successful.
The petty arguments about this NIE miss this point. President Bush is arguing about keeping his current program to suppress Iran’s program in place. There is still an argument for this. And well, he’s been successful so far.
I don’t understand why Republicans are letting the press and the left beat us up on this. This is the third in a string of striking victories. Though chronolgically - North Korea was the final one to stop.
96. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 11:25 am
neocon et al,
Heck, I went to tech school with Iranians in 1977. They were flying F-14’s, Bell helicopters, and more.
Two years later we were flying ELINT missions off the Midway up into Iran in preparation for the (aborted) rescue mission.
97. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I think it’s time to tone down the rhetoric and find some common ground on the Iranian issue. I think it’s safe to say that both conservatives and liberals would agree that using a seat-belt every time you drive is a good idea. But, why? Do you get into an accident every time you drive? I certainly hope not. No, it’s a good idea, because it is possible that you could get into an accident. I think both conservatives and liberals would agree that it is possible that Iran is attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon. There is no absolute way to be sure they aren’t. Given that we all agree that always using a seat-belt is a good idea then wouldn’t we all agree that it makes sense to attack Iran just to be on the safe side? Or do liberals like to live dangerously?
98. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Kahn,
Thanks to Jimmah Carter…..
99. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Kirk,
I think thats a good idea. OK, so we got them to stop. But maybe it was just that they paused? How can we be sure?
Thats what Bush is pushing for, I believe. That they acknowledge that they even had a program and that they dismantle it. THAT’s the problem with the NIE.
Certainly people can agree that stopping sworn enemies from getting nuclear weapons is a good idea? Funny, because I’ve seen it both minimized here and Iran’s positions defended.
100. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“Given that we all agree that always using a seat-belt is a good idea then wouldn’t we all agree that it makes sense to attack Iran just to be on the safe side”
Ok, why would us “lefties” not think it would make sense to attack Iran just to be safe while still thinking it’s a good idea to wear a seat belt?
Here’s why it’s not a good idea. They have a huge military. They have control of a lot of our oil which means they can control our economy. They would retaliate by striking our allies, ya know, Isreal. It would be a huge mess in the middle east. And it would really piss off the muslims in the region. Hezbollah would probably get involved.
Also:
“An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran’s, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into civil war.
Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to piss off during his period in office.
Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in favor of euros.”
——————-
So, all of this, just to be safe? Does this sound all that SAFE of a bet? Because to me it’s clearly ludicrous to try to attack Iran. I’ll gladly, however, buckle my seat belt if our idiotic leadership and republicans that support them do indeed do this.
101. phnx | December 5th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“If Bush really did get all three of these countries to drop their programs - then it’s a major accomplishment.” Kahn
I agree. What astounds me is that the leftist blame Bush for everything imaginable, Global Warming, 9/11, the price of gasoline, Katrina, you name it, anything that has gone wrong in the world is his fault.
However when three countries drop their nuclear programs during his term, in response to pressure, Bush had nothing to do with it, and can’t be given any of the credit.
Its the same disconnected logic in which one one hand they call Bush a moron, who can’t walk and chew gum, and on the other a mastermind who has conncocted diabolical plans to steal two elections, destroy the twin towers and lie to the American people to invade a country to avenge a faile attempt on his father…blah blah blah.
Meanwhile, time and time again they have shown a willingness to sacrifice principle for peace.
And these idiots want to run the country???
102. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
phnx, how much oil did you consume today? Probably as much as the rest of us did. Which is 20 million barrels a day.
You know who has the most oil? Saudis, Iraq, and Iran… in that order. Without oil what are we? Nothing. If we have control of it, we are the strongest nation in the world.
Without it we are, again, nothing.
So think about that next time you advocate attacking and occupying a soverign nation sitting on a huge oil reserve.
Peace in America in 2007 and beyond = Securing Oil Reserves
My vision of Peace? Focusing on renewable resources, become the biggest most innovative producer of these products and become the biggest exporter of said products to the rest of the world.
Is that so crazy?
103. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Kahn, common sense is the best policy. I really can’t grasp why people would argue otherwise yet I see it all the time from the left.
SteaM, I agree that Iran has a huge military on paper, but most people in the Iranian military would greet us as liberators. This would be a short war. As far as your safety concerns, do you really think a nuclear holocaust is safer than conventional warfare? Seriously, do you really think a war that takes a few weeks or a few months is worse than every American citizen being vaporized?
104. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Kirk,
Uh, are you Don Rumsfeld or something? Greet us as liberators? Short war? War would only take a few weeks or months?
good god, man, this is what all the architects of the Iraq war kept telling us. That’s how they sold it to us and the media. And they were wrong. I ain’t gonna be fooled again.
Didn’t we learn anything from Iraq? Or hell, what about vietnam?
105. neocon | December 5th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
SteaM,
Canada is our largest supplier of oil, and considering the vast reserves there, we may never need ME oil.
There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil reserves here. That’s second to Saudi Arabia’s 260 billion but it’s only what companies can get with today’s technology. The estimate of how many more barrels of oil are buried deeper underground is staggering.
“We know there’s much, much more there. The total estimates could be two trillion or even higher,” says Clive Mather, Shell’s Canada chief. “This is a very, very big resource.”
Very big? That’s eight times the amount of reserves in Saudi Arabia.
106. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
SteaM, I object to your use of the word “sold.” Tell me though, what were Rumsfeld or the “architects” wrong about? Of course we learned a lot from Iraq. That’s why we are going use that war as a template for Iran. I see no reason why we won’t have the same success. Perhaps you have some “secret” information that President Bush doesn’t. If Vietnam taught us one thing it’s that you only lose a war when you pull the troops out. Perhaps you think our troops are losers, but most Americans would disagree.
And to further back NeoCon’s statement: Since oil is a world commodity oil prices will rise thereby enabling American oil companies to increase profits and trickle them down to the American people. I just don’t see anyway we can lose by attacking Iran and Syria. Or perhaps you don’t think Americans should be prosperous?
107. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Wow, Kirk, I don’t know where to start. I’m laughing too hard to type. Your comment is satire, right?
108. Casper | December 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Kirk,
“I think both conservatives and liberals would agree that it is possible that Iran is attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon. There is no absolute way to be sure they aren’t. Given that we all agree that always using a seat-belt is a good idea then wouldn’t we all agree that it makes sense to attack Iran just to be on the safe side?”
By your logic, I should shoot my neighbor before he shoots me. By your logic we should attack every other country in the world, because they might be threats some day.
109. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
SteaM, smearing me won’t cover the fact that you don’t seem to understand geopolitics. Take for example your view that since we get most of our oil from Canada that cutting the supply from the “ME” will have no effect on us. Quite clearly this will cause oil prices to rise domestically as Canada will sell to whomever will provide the most profits. This in turn means American oil companies can raise their prices too; thereby allowing the American people to reap a windfall of profits. This is simple supply and demand. I don’t want to be too harsh, but only a dullard would think that cutting the supply of oil somewhere other than Canada or the US has no effect on us. It’s as if you live in your own little world and don’t understand market forces at all.
110. AgentFear | December 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Back to the real lie.
McConnell TOLD Bush back in August about an important NIE finding. Bush did not ask, nor was seemingly interested in finding out what this NIE contained.
He did not find out until last week.
BUSH IS LYING.
You know it, I know it, the world knows it.
Sad. Honestly, how sad. The leadererer in Chief.
111. Joe | December 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Kirk,
geopolitics is NOT bombing every nation you don’t agree with.
Good grief.
112. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Casper, that is a silly thing to say. Quite clearly you can’t attack everyone at once so you must use peace as leverage against the less serious threats. I think this is a key difference between us: You see peace as a goal in and of itself while I see it as a necessary evil. Sometimes I get criticized as being too moderate for having this view, but I see nothing wrong with being pragmatic.
113. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Joe, do you really think I don’t understand that? Why do you think we developed ICBM’s? Your extreme ideology makes you twist my words.
114. Ricorun | December 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Okay, now I get it… Kirk is a plant trying to make conservatives look like a bunch of morons.
115. Joe | December 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
So Kirk… why exactly is Iran more of a serious threat than say… Pakistan (who already has a bomb) or North Korea who already tested (although unsuccessfully) nuclear weapons?
Why do you say Iran, who HALTED HEIR WEAPONS PROGRAM 4 YEARS AGO is more of a threat?
Nobody has ever successfully explained why the push for bombing Iran.
116. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
SteaM writes - “Ok, why would us “lefties” not think it would make sense to attack Iran just to be safe while still thinking it’s a good idea to wear a seat belt?”
Who attacked Iran? Who was planning to? We are talking tough. You know, ther’re still enriching Uranium. The do still hate us.
But well, are you saying that Bush neutralized this problem in 2002 and he’s just miking it? That his 3 and 0 record on nuke stopping is bad?
117. Joe | December 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Kirk, you say I twisted YOUR words??? You are the one who claimed…
Perhaps you think our troops are losers, but most Americans would disagree.
Who ever said that????
118. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Ricorun, very clever. Pretend to be a conservative spouting that I’m part of a conspiracy to discredit other conservatives in order to discredit conservatives yourself by making us look like conspiracy nuts. I think everyone can see who the real conspirator is.
119. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Agent - so Bush is lying to cover up a major victory? That doesn’t sound absurd to you?
Nuclear weapons nuclear weapons nuclear weapons. They are too dangerous to assume anything. OK, so they stopped working on them. Great. They never admitted they WERE working on them. They are still enriching uranium. AND the report says their program could still be running (plausible, but not probable). So? Which is it? Are they still a threat? Or did Bush eliminate the threat already?
Maybe he eliminated it, but wants to keep it eliminated?
I’m getting sick of these stupid posts. Your hatred has colored your judgment to the point that your arguments are insane.
North Korea - stopped their nukes.
Iran - stopped their nukes.
Libya - stopped their nukes.
ALL because of Bush policies. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Yoy asshole. You’re actually angry because Bush eliminated a nuclear threat. What a dick (you are).
120. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Joe, it’s because Iran could restart their nuclear weapons program. President Bush has made this very clear. Also, you don’t deny that you think our troops are losers so I think it is pretty clear to most of us that that must be how you feel.
Kahn, you are giving aid to the enemy by claiming that America is just “talking tough.” Please desist.
121. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Agent, ditto what Kahn said, but without the profanity.
122. Joe | December 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
That’s it Kirk… keep twisting away. Again, when did anyone say the troops were losers? I believe those were YOUR words. To quote Kahn above… “You asshole”.
You still didn’t answer the question. Why is Iran more of a threat. If they COULD reinstitute it, why couldn’t North Korea or Libya for that matter that are/were apparently further along than Iran ever was.
Why is Pakistan not a bigger threat? They don’t have to reconsitute anything. They HAVE them!!!
123. Diana Powe | December 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Okay, even I have to say that Kirk is either, A) “a lefty troll” satirizing Blogs For Victory, or B) most assuredly ought to be A, if not A.
124. Kahn | December 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
No, not just talking tough. I just don’t think we were or are seriously considering attacking Iran.
We certainly could. And it wouldn’t take ground troops either. We have protected airfields in three nations bordering Iran. Plus, Bahrain and Kuwait. Plus we’ve got this Navy with lots of aircraft carriers and ships that have large batteries of cruise missiles.
I believe that HAD to be one of things the Iranians considered. It is actually ludicrous to argue it wasn’t. That threat MUST remain real to get them the rest of the way on this. To get them to admit to and dismantle their program.
My argument is at Liberals. YOU say he’s lying. I say about what? You mean he’s lying about not winning a tremendous victory? The absurdity is incredible.
125. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Norman Podhoretz … when is this guy ever right?
126. Ricorun | December 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Okay Kirk, let’s review…
I think this is a key difference between us: You see peace as a goal in and of itself while I see it as a necessary evil.
Peace is a necessary evil?
Quite clearly this will cause oil prices to rise domestically as Canada will sell to whomever will provide the most profits. This in turn means American oil companies can raise their prices too; thereby allowing the American people to reap a windfall of profits. This is simple supply and demand.
Uh, yeah… your argument is that if you increase the supply prices will go up and that would be great for everyone.
Of course we learned a lot from Iraq. That’s why we are going use that war as a template for Iran. I see no reason why we won’t have the same success.
Many would argue our experience in Iraq would argue against rather than for what you propose.
Given that we all agree that always using a seat-belt is a good idea then wouldn’t we all agree that it makes sense to attack Iran just to be on the safe side?
Why stop at seat belts? According to your reasoning a better analogy would be to eliminate cars. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about seat belts.
127. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Joe, again you refuse to deny the comments. Also, it is unrealistic to attack North Korea, Libya and Pakistan at the same time we attack Iran and Syria. You are like a child that wants everything now. Sometimes you just have to wait.
Diana, if name calling is all you have then bring it on.
Kahn, we both agree that we could attack Iran. My point is that we should attack Iran now. Why wait? Waiting is taking a risk that more “intelligence” comes out saying they are not an imminent threat. That’s a risk I don’t think is worth taking.
128. Joe | December 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
That is correct Kirk, attack Iran NOW. As soon as you are done, then go into Syria. After that, then we can deal with Pakistan, Libya and North Korea. Once those all fall, then Russia and China will be invaded!!!!! You are a serious freak of a person.
The reason I haven’t denied it yet is because I never said it. It is simply you being a complete dope.
129. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Ricorun,
1) Yes, I was quite clear in my statement.
2) No, increasing supplies would make prices go down. I said cutting supplies would make prices go up. Nice attempt to try blunt my expertise in this field by claiming I said something I didn’t.
3) Yes, many people argue ridiculous things. Just look at the comments on this blog.
4) Your analogy is flawed. The car represents the world while the seat-belt represents a strategy to keep the world safe. Are you saying we should get rid of the world just so we don’t have to worry about strategy?
130. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Joe, how is knowing our limitations being a freak? Seriously, just because I acknowledge the reality that the United States can’t do everything it ought to do you attack me. It’s not unpatriotic to come up with a realistic strategy for success. In fact, I would say that it is more patriot to do so.
Once again, you don’t deny agreeing with those nasty comments.
131. SteaM | December 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Kirk,
Do you endore Ron Paul for president? If so how do you feel about him saying we should get out of the middle east immediatly?
132. phnx | December 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
SteaM,
Your post about the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran makes no sense whatsoever.
As you point out, we need oil, so according to you we should have been dependent upon regimes (Iraq with Saddam) and Iran, until we could develop altenative energy sources.
May I remind you that Saddam, had full intentions to resurrect his WMD program as soon as sanctions were raised. Iran probably has the same intent. So Saudi Arabia will be at their mercy as would a large portion of the the world supply of oil.
I’m all for reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, and if alternative energy is the answer, great! But best estimates are 10 to 20 years before we stand any chance of displacing oil even if the energy sources, which are R&D prijects, actually work. OBTW, environmentalists have just filed another law suit against a wind power project in Texas. So much for that source of energy as well as nuclear power, which is proven, but opposed by you leftists.
I do not understand why you leftists are against tapping our own oil reserves. Fact is we do not know with any certainty how much oil is off of our shores and in Alaska. But it seems to me that we better know and be prepared to use it in the event of a world catastrophe.
Al Queda could care less if the world has oil, they would prefer that we return to the 7th century. I would expect that a nuclear explosion in the oil fields of the Middle East is a more likely scenario than in a US city.
We should drill now, and if necessary cap the wells so that they are immediatley available when we need them in an emergency.
133. Joe | December 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
You fool. Of course I do not agree with them. That would go without saying. That is nothing but a rightie way of making Democrats look like they hate the military. You are so f-ing wrong you have no idea. Apparently you think Republicans have cornered the market on the military. You are a fool.
The reason you think I am attacking you is because you are crazy to think that we should pick off and invade country after country just because we don’t agree with them.
If you think you can believe Democrats hate the troops, then we can equally claim that your “plan” is to basically world domination. We started with Iraq, we will go to Iran, then Syria, etc, etc, etc.
That my friend is flat out nuts.
134. Kirk | December 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
SteaM, I see what you are trying to get at, but let me answer your question with two quotes:
President to be George W. Bush in 2000:
They ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from that you can succeed. I don’t think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.
President to be Dr. Ron Paul in 2007:
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don’t police the world. That’s conservative, it’s Republican, it’s pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
Dr. Paul is running on the same platform as President Bush did. I have little doubt that we will have the same successes under a Paul administration as under the Bush administration.
135. Joe | December 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
phnx,
How do you know “May I remind you that Saddam, had full intentions to resurrect his WMD program as soon as sanctions were raised”
Are you just guessing that he COULD have done t